State v. Stinson, 821
| Decision Date | 16 June 1966 |
| Docket Number | No. 821,821 |
| Citation | 148 S.E.2d 593,267 N.C. 661 |
| Court | North Carolina Supreme Court |
| Parties | STATE, v. John Bynum STINSON. |
T. W. Bruton, Atty. Gen., Harry W. McGalliard, Deputy Atty. Gen., for the State.
Lee W. Settle, Mebane, John D. Xanthos, Burlington, for defendant appellant.
We have carefully examined the defendant's assignments of error and find them without merit. The motion for continuance was addressed to the discretion of the court. The motion for a directed verdict was properly denied. The court's charge presented fairly the burden the law required the State to carry before the jury could render a verdict of guilty on either of the charges. Error in the trial or reason why the verdict and judgment should be disturbed are not disclosed.
No error.
MOORE, J., not sitting.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Branch, 1
...to the discretion of the trial judge and his ruling thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion. State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E.2d 593 (1966). However, when the motion is based on a right guaranteed by the Federal and State Constitutions, the question presented is o......
-
State v. Miller
...thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion. State v. Baldwin, 276 N.C. 690, 174 S.E.2d 526 (1970); State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E.2d 593 (1966). However, if the motion is based on a right guaranteed by the federal or state constitution, the question presented is on......
-
State v. Baldwin
...absent an abuse of discretion. 2 Strong's N.C. Index 2d, Criminal Law § 91; State v. Moses, 272 N.C. 509, 158 S.E.2d 617; State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E.2d 593; State v. Ferebee, 266 N.C. 606, 146 S.E.2d 666; State v. Arnold, 258 N.C. 563, 129 S.E.2d 229; State v. Stroud, 254 N.C. ......
-
State v. Cameron
...thereon is not subject to review absent abuse of discretion.' State v. Stepney, 280 N.C. 306, 185 S.E.2d 844 (1971); State v. Stinson, 267 N.C. 661, 148 S.E.2d 593 (1966). In the present case, it does not appear that any juror read or heard about the other charges against defendant or that ......